• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How to explain this fact?

Status
Not open for further replies.
After a certain point I don't consider replying even jokingly to one such as the OP when they demonstrate such lack of willingness to learn. Hats off to those who try to seriously engage -- It can at least be helpful to other fence-sitters that read the site. I doubt in a case like this I could maintain civility.

But ban-worthy posters usually out themselves pretty early on.
 
Cris said:
If evidence recorded in books is not allowed in this forum, then it is best not to continue. I have books with a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...


"Cris" is gone, and the thread's probably at its end, but as for this thing about books: There's a type of people that tends to generally accept things written in "books". (I guess the online version of this ... tendency, is to (tend to) accept things if only one can supply a link that bears out those things.)

For someone of this kind, seeing things printed in a book may well qualify as strong evidence. It could be that's where "Cris" was coming from.


ETA: Where he was coming from as far as just the books thing, I mean.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
Why on earth did he not just continue to post as Ricardo? It's not like Ricardo had been banned.
Click to expand...

Ricardo admitted to lying about his previous claims of the supernatural. It was the same stunt that Cris pulled: tell a story that's seemingly impossible to explain, but so bereft of detail and opportunities for inspection that it will be forever vague. So as soon as Ricardo tried to tell another story in another meaningless round of Stump the Skeptics, his critics would rightly have reminded him that he is a hard-core believer in spirits, to the point where we know he'll lie about whatever story he's telling. He needed the alter ago Cris to throw his critics off guard.
 
JayUtah said:
Ricardo admitted to lying about his previous claims of the supernatural. It was the same stunt that Cris pulled: tell a story that's seemingly impossible to explain, but so bereft of detail and opportunities for inspection that it will be forever vague. So as soon as Ricardo tried to tell another story in another meaningless round of Stump the Skeptics, his critics would rightly have reminded him that he is a hard-core believer in spirits, to the point where we know he'll lie about whatever story he's telling. He needed the alter ago Cris to throw his critics off guard.
Click to expand...

And he would have gotten away with it, too, if weren't for . . . . nevermind, he wasn't getting anywhere.
 
Pixel42 said:
Why on earth did he not just continue to post as Ricardo? It's not like Ricardo had been banned.
Click to expand...


The thread wasn't going how he expected, I guess. Had things gone differently, "Ricardo" may have come in at some opportune moment with some support that just might have turned the course of the thread. That may well have been the broad idea.

I'm just guessing, of course, but this sort of thing's common enough online. Nor is it limited to rogue posters: in a blog, for instance, the blog owner themselves may well employ socks to drum up support, and get a momentum going.

The whole set of rules on here, the MA thing, they do seem kind of ridiculous at first glance -- I know that was my first reaction, I mean, are you serious, all these MA clauses that everyone keeps "rule-lawyering" about endlessly? -- but it's these rules, and the mods, that kind of sets this place apart.

Using socks to create the illusion of support for one's views, that's very common online.
 
I have a few woo-ish books purchased for near nothing.

The written and printed word needs to be evaluated as evidence or droppings equally as the spoken word.

Brazil is a very religious and spiritual country yet, No doubt his whole life is immersed in what we call woo.
That makes it easy to feel like you personally are under attack when reading here.
 
Cris said:
All you can't explain is invention.
stop generalizing.
admit that you cannot explain this fact.
Click to expand...

You can't call it a fact. Because you cannot know if it was true. Because, by your own admission, you have no way to verify the story: You don't know if the likeness of the daughter was true. In fact, you don't even know if the daughter even ever existed.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
You can't call it a fact. Because you cannot know if it was true. Because, by your own admission, you have no way to verify the story: You don't know if the likeness of the daughter was true. In fact, you don't even know if the daughter even ever existed.

Hans
Click to expand...

Keep up mate, we don't even know Cris ever existed.
 
Pixel42 said:
Why on earth did he not just continue to post as Ricardo? It's not like Ricardo had been banned.
Click to expand...


As a mod:

Ricardo asked to be deregistered, and such wish was granted. Had he asked to rejoin as Ricardo, that would have been allowed. Since he rejoined as a "new" member, he was a sock puppet - bannable offense.

Now, it has happened that some long-ago poster has tried to log on and forgotten his or her password or even exact username. Some have joined under a new name, but then immediately contacted the mods with their story of woe. In those cases, we merge the accounts and let the poster choose whichever name he/she prefers.

In fact, you can change your username at any time with a simple request to the Admins. You'll need to add a signature saying, "Previously known as Member X," but that's the whole process.

If there are any further comments on moderation, let's bring them over to FMF and not pollute a "substantive" thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom